% behaviour incidents cumulative % pupils Concentration of behaviour incidents: Percentage of pupils accounting for percentage of incidents 0.15% of pupils explain 1% of incidents 0.39% of pupils explain 5% of incidents 0.91% of pupils explain 10% of incidents 2.89% of pupils explain 25% of incidents 7.86% of pupils account for 50% of incidents 17.57% of pupils explain 75% of incidents 31.51% of pupils explain 90% of incidents 41.23% of pupils explain 95% of incidents 58.1% of pupils explain 99% of incidents 32.79% of pupils have no incidents at all N pupils = 3284 N incidents = 44, % of pupils account for all incidents Behaviour in Secondary Schools Amy Challen Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics Press reports paint a bleak picture of behaviour in secondary schools in England. They suggest that disruptive and insolent behaviour is common; that a large number of pupils are badly behaved; and that violent incidents occur frequently. They also claim that behaviour is worse than it used to be, and that parents are to blame. Are these assertions true? I use data from the behaviour incident databases of four typical English comprehensive schools to look at behaviour patterns. The data covers 3,284 pupils in four schools over 2-6 academic years. Behaviour in Secondary Schools Amy Challen Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics Press reports paint a bleak picture of behaviour in secondary schools in England. They suggest that disruptive and insolent behaviour is common; that a large number of pupils are badly behaved; and that violent incidents occur frequently. They also claim that behaviour is worse than it used to be, and that parents are to blame. Are these assertions true? I use data from the behaviour incident databases of four typical English comprehensive schools to look at behaviour patterns. The data covers 3,284 pupils in four schools over 2-6 academic years. (8) Conclusions Many media reports probably exaggerate the severity of behaviour in schools, focusing on violent incidents which are in fact relatively rare. However, low-level disruption is common. It is also not true that most pupils are regularly unruly: most pupils are well behaved most of the time, and one third are never involved in incidents. These findings are in line with reports by the Department for Education and Ofsted (DfE, 2012; Ofsted, 2005). Nevertheless, there is a high degree of concentration in incidents, with 10% of pupils accounting for more than half of all incidents: these pupils clearly have problematic behaviour. Pupils’ behaviour is persistent through time, and pupils who frequently misbehave do so with many different teachers, suggesting that behaviour problems are not context specific. Demographic characteristics are good predictors for behaviour, but do not tell the full story: they do not explain that much of the variation in behaviour, and there is substantial heterogeneity in behaviour within demographic groups. Segal (2008) obtains very similar results with a detailed dataset from American high schools. Thus although we cannot say whether parents are ‘to blame’ for their children’s behaviour, a pupil’s demographic background is a strong predictor of the likelihood that they will behave well or badly. Interestingly, rates of misbehaviour vary through the day and week – schools could take this into account when scheduling to minimise disruption in key lessons. My data panel only lasts up to 6 years, so I cannot say whether poor behaviour has become more frequent or more severe over the past few decades. However, it would appear that bad pupil behaviour is at least nothing new… (8) Conclusions Many media reports probably exaggerate the severity of behaviour in schools, focusing on violent incidents which are in fact relatively rare. However, low-level disruption is common. It is also not true that most pupils are regularly unruly: most pupils are well behaved most of the time, and one third are never involved in incidents. These findings are in line with reports by the Department for Education and Ofsted (DfE, 2012; Ofsted, 2005). Nevertheless, there is a high degree of concentration in incidents, with 10% of pupils accounting for more than half of all incidents: these pupils clearly have problematic behaviour. Pupils’ behaviour is persistent through time, and pupils who frequently misbehave do so with many different teachers, suggesting that behaviour problems are not context specific. Demographic characteristics are good predictors for behaviour, but do not tell the full story: they do not explain that much of the variation in behaviour, and there is substantial heterogeneity in behaviour within demographic groups. Segal (2008) obtains very similar results with a detailed dataset from American high schools. Thus although we cannot say whether parents are ‘to blame’ for their children’s behaviour, a pupil’s demographic background is a strong predictor of the likelihood that they will behave well or badly. Interestingly, rates of misbehaviour vary through the day and week – schools could take this into account when scheduling to minimise disruption in key lessons. My data panel only lasts up to 6 years, so I cannot say whether poor behaviour has become more frequent or more severe over the past few decades. However, it would appear that bad pupil behaviour is at least nothing new… (1) Pupils and incidents Poor behaviour is highly concentrated among a small number of pupils. 7.86% of pupils are responsible for half of all behaviour incidents, while one third of pupils have no behaviour incidents at all. The remainder are somewhere in the middle, with occasional misbehaviour. Incidents per pupil and number of teachers involved (4) Consistency of pupils’ behaviour Is poor behaviour usually the result of a bad pupil-teacher combination, or do pupils with many behaviour incidents behave badly with many different teachers? It appears that pupils with more incidents also misbehaved with more teachers, with a ratio of about one new teacher to every two more incidents. This suggests that poor behaviour is not context specific. (5) Pupil characteristics 10% of pupils are responsible for over half of all behaviour incidents. What are the characteristics of these pupils? Here I compare the 10% of pupils responsible for most incidents, with the other 90% of their peers at these schools. Pupils with poor behaviour are significantly more likely to be boys; to have special educational needs; to be eligible for free school meals; to be from a white ethnic background; to live with only one or neither of their parents; and to have failed to achieve the national standards in English and maths in national tests at age 11 (level 4 at Key Stage 2). However, there is still heterogeneity, and no variable is a perfect predictor of behaviour – for instance, although boys are more likely to have poor behaviour, 29.3% of the worst behaved pupils are girls. Overall, demographic characteristics are strongly associated with the likelihood of a pupil having very poor behaviour, but the relationship is not deterministic and there are many pupils who buck the trend. (5) Pupil characteristics 10% of pupils are responsible for over half of all behaviour incidents. What are the characteristics of these pupils? Here I compare the 10% of pupils responsible for most incidents, with the other 90% of their peers at these schools. Pupils with poor behaviour are significantly more likely to be boys; to have special educational needs; to be eligible for free school meals; to be from a white ethnic background; to live with only one or neither of their parents; and to have failed to achieve the national standards in English and maths in national tests at age 11 (level 4 at Key Stage 2). However, there is still heterogeneity, and no variable is a perfect predictor of behaviour – for instance, although boys are more likely to have poor behaviour, 29.3% of the worst behaved pupils are girls. Overall, demographic characteristics are strongly associated with the likelihood of a pupil having very poor behaviour, but the relationship is not deterministic and there are many pupils who buck the trend. Refs/acknowledgements Content based on “Behaviour and scheduling in English secondary schools”, Amy Challen, unpublished manuscript January 2013 Additional data from the National Pupil Database DfE. (2012). Pupil behaviour in schools in England DfE Research Reports. London: Department for Education. Ofsted. (2005). Managing challenging behaviour HMI 2363 Segal, C. (2008). Classroom Behavior. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 783– 814. Historic newspaper citations from the British Newspaper Archive: Blackboard image: PSD/10951.jpg Stationery clip art: tationary/index.php Refs/acknowledgements Content based on “Behaviour and scheduling in English secondary schools”, Amy Challen, unpublished manuscript January 2013 Additional data from the National Pupil Database DfE. (2012). Pupil behaviour in schools in England DfE Research Reports. London: Department for Education. Ofsted. (2005). Managing challenging behaviour HMI 2363 Segal, C. (2008). Classroom Behavior. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 783– 814. Historic newspaper citations from the British Newspaper Archive: Blackboard image: PSD/10951.jpg Stationery clip art: tationary/index.php